Talk:GNU General Public License

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
To-do list for GNU General Public License: edit · history · watch · refresh

To mark images as being licensed under the GPL or LGPL, use Template:GPL and Template:LGPL. Thanks.

((done)) modified false viral criticism with addition of : Making a derivative work of a software program IS NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT. You, the hypothetical developer of the derived work, receive the program accompanied by its unambiguous terms of use, and IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THOSE TERMS. If you do not, then that is your fault, and ignorance of the law does not excuse its transgression. linking to this text : http://www.metastatic.org/text/the-gpl-is-not-viral.html Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.130.66.19 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 10 October 2006.

That language might be at home in a discussion forum, but here it is inappropriate and POV. Reverted. However, I changed word "complaint" to "label" to better convey the sense of denigration that the users of the term usually mean to imply. --193.11.177.69 19:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] "Opponent"

This article fail to make the distinction from criticism ( critics ) and Opponent , very few GPL user and developper regard the use and usage of there license as a problem , the Opponent of the GPL and free software on the other end always try to make it look bad or associate it with some qualification that is normally use to convey a sense of bad behavior or unwanted quality.

Microsoft is not a critique of the GPL , it dont use it and dont contribute to it and oppose it directly and often

lie about its quality.

reference :

Bill Gates :

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/04/22/gates_gpl_will_eat_your/

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-268667.html

Craig Mundie, Microsoft Senior Vice President :

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/craig/05-03sharedsource.mspx

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer :

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_cancer/

http://www.wgz.org/chromatic/essays/BallmerLying.html

http://www.adti.net/samizdat/msft.on.linux.html

The Open Source Advocate , who are constantly arguing that Open Source is better then Free software :

Eric Steven Raymond , aka ESR , The former president of the Open Source Initiative

http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/06/30/esr_interview.html

BSD's

The BSD After 36 years of failure due to there own hubris and unrealistic views are today attacking and attaching themself to the GPL and GNU/Linux.

They oppose the GPL because it protect the freedom it give , unlike them who got taken over by the Traitors who closed everything.

This is why I suggest that the critics of Opponent be placed under the category Opponent and that critics be left to those who support and use it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moulinneuf (talk • contribs) 23:55, 30 August 2006.

[edit] "Legally enforceable"

Defendant has infringed on the copyright of plaintiff by offering the software 'netfilter/iptables' for download and by advertising its distribution, without adhering to the license conditions of the GPL. Said actions would only be permissible if defendant had a license grant... This is independent of the questions whether the licensing conditions of the GPL have been effectively agreed upon between plaintiff and defendant or not. If the GPL were not agreed upon by the parties, defendant would notwithstanding lack the necessary rights to copy, distribute, and make the software 'netfilter/iptables' publicly available.

This ruling was important because it was the first time in the world that a court had confirmed that the GPL is a legally enforceable license.

Really? Unless I'm reading it wrong it seems like the ruling completely glosses over whether the G.P.L. is legally enforceable. —Casey J. Morris

[edit] Why is this page biased?

It seems to me that the GPL--a controversial topic--is presented here in a favorable, optimistic light. Even the controversy section tries to refute the controversy. A controversial topic should be presented in a completely NEUTRAL manner, so it doesn't offend people who are opposed to it and its ideals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.207.198.126 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 30 November 2005.

Of course the controversy section "tries to refute the controversy". That's called "presenting both sides of the argument".
On a more helpful note, would you care to identify the specific areas you consider to be biased? I'm seeing citations and statistics to support all the positive claims, and I'm seeing all the common criticisms of the GPL being presented in there. So where, exactly, is the problem? — Haeleth Talk 22:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

What it seems to say is that:

Either the GPL is valid OR You have no right to distribute the software

Hence, the validity or otherwise of the GPL doesn't matter - it is untestable in a traditional sense - because there are no possible outcomes in a court which could ever result in the GPL itself being tested. One must admit to it's elegance if nothing else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.96.3.206 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 27 June 2006.

[edit] Why is the license under GNU instead of FSF?

I was wondering why the GPL license called the GNU GPL license and not the FSF GPL license? After all GNU is an OS and GPL is not only an OS license. If anyone has better wording for my question go ahead and reword it, I am leaving this question unsigned for this reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.233.48.200 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 30 October 2005.

It was written by FSF, but it was written for GNU, and it is one component of the GNU project. I don't think anyone in FSF has ever given a reason for choosing one over the other, so any further discussion is speculation: Maybe to emphasise the goal over the owner? Maybe it was thought that putting an organisation's name in there would encourage other organisations to invent their own? Maybe because the license must be able to outlive any legal entity? Gronky 01:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
It is meant to be a General Pubic License I would understand what you are saying if it was a GNU Public License instead... but the way I see it right now its a plot by RMS to give GNU a General Public acknowledgment, this may also be the real reason to why RMS is pushing so much to call Linux, GNU/Linux as it give GNU free advertising and gives it a bigger possibility of getting a General Public acknowledgment. Anyway I will bring this up with the FSF soon (like within a month). 220.233.48.200 08:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
A quick note on history: When Stallman released GNU Emacs, he wrote the Emacs Public License, when he wrote GCC, he wrote the GCC Public License, when he wrote GDB, he wrote the GDB Public License. Over time, people asked him if they could move some code from one project into another (like, from GCC to GDB). The licenses were incompatible, so each time Stallman had to make an exception. This was obviously inefficient, and it would become increasingly inefficient as the number of GNU packages increased, so he wrote one General license, for the public, which he would use for all the GNU packages. (So it's not a "General Public" License, it's a General "Public License")
Thank this clears it up a lot could this historical info be added to the article? 220.233.48.200 12:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
It's not the Stallman GPL, or the RMS GPL, and he hasn't tried to call the operating system Stallmanix. Also, note that Stallman doesn't ask for the Linux kernel to be called GNU/Linux. He only asks that operating systems which consist of the GNU system + the Linux kernel be called GNU/Linux. And most people call the license the "GPL", not the "GNU GPL", and Stallman doesn't make a point of asking people to call it the "GNU GPL". Also, remember that the GPL predates the Linux kernel, and the GNU project also predates the Linux kernel (by 8 years, during which Stallman, hundreds of volunteers, and the software developers hired by FSF were working to make a free software operating system available). Gronky 11:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Stallman == RMS. I never said he is doing it for personal fame, rather I meant he is doing it for the GNU project. With your second point of he is only pushing for Linux distro's that use the GNU user-land application that is exactly what I meant, sorry I didn't make it clear. And it must be called the GNU GPL as another project or company could come and make their own GPL and confustion will be made in between them. 220.233.48.200 12:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
There actually is another non-GNU GPL. It's called the Affero GPL. -- Wonderstruck 06:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something to be addressed in article

If a person takes a GPL'd work, modifies it, and then sells it to a third party, it is presumably still covered by the GPL. Is the third party allowed to then give away (or sell) this copy he has bought as long as he provides source code, etc? Would he be violating the GPL if he did so? Or would he be violating some other aspect of copyright law? Some discussion of such a scenario would be helpful for the understanding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.204.200.182 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 2 August 2004.

This is a non-issue. If someone gives you a copy of something under the GPL, they cannot prevent you from doing anything with it that the GPL permits. Therefore, if you buy a bit of GPL'd software, nothing can stop you from giving away that software, as long as you follow the terms of the GPL. I'm finding it hard to imagine any hypothetical scenario in which this is not obvious; maybe you could elaborate on why you think this is hard to understand? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.86.133.45 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 9 September 2004.
I think the parent misunderstands the grandparent. I think the grandparent was talking about if A modified X which is copyrighted by B & available to A only under the GPL, and A gave C a modified version (Y) of X without giving C a GPL to his modifications to X. In this case C would not be allowed to distribute Y, but B would be able to sue A for distributing Y to C and A would no longer be able to distribute X or Y. However, it should be noted that, if, in the above example, C had received Y from A under the GPL but the way A distributed Y to C violated the copyright of B on X, C would still be able to distribute Y to others as long as it did not further violate B's copyright on X, but A would no longer be able to distribute X or Y without the permission of B.

--Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley 05:44, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

If Y is a modified version of B's GPL-ed program X, then C receives a license to X directly from B when they receive Y from A (ref. GPL sec. 6), even if A doesn't tell C that Y is based on X. C would be clearly within their rights to redistribute Y to anyone they care to, for free or for profit, so long as they follow the terms of the GPL. It is even possible that C or their redistributees would be able to compel B to distribute Y under the GPL. But that gets into the largely-untested world of GPL litigation, and there's really no way to predict how it would play out. All that aside, I believe 81.86.133.45 was correct that this is a non-issue as far as the article is concerned - it's a straw man and a weak one at that. RossPatterson 18:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This is hypothetical but interesting question: If a person takes a GPL'd work, modifies it, and then sells it to a third party AND (suppose he could) deletes all previously existing copies and derivates of the source and the binaries so that the buyer becomes the only owner of the orginal code under the GPL license, then would another/third person be able to force the buyer to hand out the GPL'd source code to him, if he knew about what happend between the buyer and the seller (that the buyer is the single and only owner of a previously publicly available GPL'd work)? Or to cut it short: If I owned all source code under GPL and all of the binaries, so that no one else would have any, then could anybody force/make me to hand out the source code by LAW? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.186.115.146 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 4 November 2005.

No, nothing in the GPL can force someone to distribute the software. It can require that they distribute the source code if they distribute the binary, but even in this situation it cannot "force" the distribution of source code. The distributor can refuse to distribute the source code, and then they're violating copyright law. This can be taken to court, and a judge will decide the penalty (probably cash). The copyright violator could of course offer to distribute the source code - in return for reduced damages, or as part of an out of court settlement. None of this is specific to the GPL though. Gronky 10:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The hypothetical contains an interesting and critical error. When 80.186.115.146 says "so that the buyer becomes the only owner of the orginal code under the GPL license", they are incorrect, and it leads to the later presumption that "I owned all source code under GPL and all of the binaries". The owner of the code is always the copyright holder - the author or whomever the author assigns the copyright to - regardless of anything else that happens to it, including the deletion of the copyright notices by someone else. It would be more correct to say that they are the sole possessor of the source and binaries, in which case it becomes clearer - possession in this case conveys nothing in the way of ownership. But Gronky is correct - the GPL doesn't give anyone else the power to compel you to distribute the code, not even the copyright holder. It only restricts your ability to distrbute the binaries without the source. RossPatterson 18:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outline of the GPL

User:CYD removed the outline that I added because "it imparts no useful information". Untrue. The unfortunate part about the GPL is that it doesn't include a table of contents inline, so an out-of-band table of contents is useful. This wasn't a gratuitous exercise; I generated it myself in my effort to really understand and organize my thinking with regards to GPL, and I hope that sharing it helps others -- RobLa 05:38 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

My opinion remains that it is useless, at least in its current form.
Remember that an encyclopedia article is not merely a dumping ground for pieces of information; it is primarily an essay designed to educate a reader on a specific topic. Put yourself in the shoes of the reader, and read through the article, until you get to:
Outline of the GPL
The GPL is divided in to several numbered sections. Below is an outline of version 2 of the GPL:
(followed by a Table of Contents.)
Now ask yourself: what did you learn from that section? My conclusion is "nothing." I applaud your attempt to provide a service to the reader, but I think that, in its current form, it adds nothing to the article and acts only as a distraction.
I disagree. The GPL is an important legal document. The structure of the document is a useful piece of information for someone who is going to tear into it.
What would be useful is an outline accompanied by discussion and commentary of each section in turn. Would you like to take on this project? -- CYD
I agree that would be more useful, and perhaps I will take on that project. Not today. -- RobLa 07:45 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms section needed

This article badly needs a criticisms section. Would need to deal with all common criticisms, the crack smoking legally incorrect and correct, and the philosophical. Is there a handy page with a pile of them? - David Gerard 11:41, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removed GPL-Licensed software

Freshmeat and sourceforge are owned by OSDN, an organisation founded on the ideals of the GPL. You cannot cite them as a reference to the GPLs popularity without inducing bias.

Darrien 03:21, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)

(This stands in contrast to the end-user licenses used for most proprietary software, which often restrict the user's rights rather than expand them.)

I didn't like these lines (and they were removed before my edit). The point is that any license is granting a person more rights than they had before. Before I bought Microsoft Office, I didn't have the right to use it on my machine. Agreeing to the license gave me more rights. In no way were my rights further restricted by the license (I could do all of the things I could do before, plus I can use Word)... it's more important to contrast that the GPL gives even further and significant rights than usual. It is a large distortion, however, to act like traditional EULAs remove anything.

The problem is that, arguably, you don't need the license to use Office, any more than you need a license to read a book that you bought. This is debated, but arguably for running a program, making personal backups, etcetera, the fair use rights that copyright law gives you by default are enough. This is also why proprietary EULAs typically require a click to "Agree" or some such thing—unlike the GPL, they can't assume that you agree merely by using the "rights" granted in the license, because you might well have those rights anyway. Most of the EULA, in contrast, typically takes away rights (or tries to)—the right to reverse-engineer, publish benchmarks, write reviews, resell the software, sue the company for failing to do what it advertises... This is the whole point of why the validity of EULAs is debated. —Steven G. Johnson
Well, the problem for the encyclopedia entry is that it's arguable. You've argued that rights are taken away; however I argue that only new rights are given... they just aren't as extensive. If I write a program on my own, and leave it only on my hard drive, am I taking away your right to use it? No, because you never had the right to use it in the first place. Had we set up a contract to grant you use of any program on my machine, then you would have the right. Note that the discussion of rights are in context to the rights granted by law, not the abstract rights from philosophy. MShonle 23:33, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
One unarguable fact is that proprietary EULA's rely on explicit user indication of consent (by clicking a button etc.), whereas the GPL relies only on the fact that, under copyright law, you don't have any rights without it. Because of this, debates about the validity of EULAs and about the validity of the GPL are quite distinct.
A second unarguable fact is that the GPL only grants you rights that you did not previously have under copyright law. Most EULAs, in contrast, purport to take away rights you would otherwise have, e.g. often that of reverse engineering and even the right to resell (see First sale doctrine). (Whether an EULA grants you, in return, any rights that you would not otherwise have is, as I admitted from the start, a hotly debated point.)
Regarding your hypothetical example of a program kept private on your hard drive, it is fairly irrelevant to the case of proprietary software. With proprietary software, I have already legally obtained a copy of the software and therefore have certain rights by default under copyright law, whereas if it's still on your hard drive I have not obtained a copy and have no rights to it. —Steven G. Johnson 03:50, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
My point is that it's silly to act like anyone has a right to steal other people's work if they don't want it to be stolen. I don't have a right to reverse engineer Office, but what makes you think I "should" have that right? The point about the hard drive is that it's clearly something that I own and is mine. Microsoft just happens to distribute it, but they still are the owners and can decide what to do with it. It's their own right. I never had claim to the right reverse engineering it in the first place, so no right was taken away. I'm playing Devil's advocate here, because I think the GPL is a great thing. I just don't care for the hyperbole. MShonle 05:26, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You're changing the subject; as you agreed a little bit ago, we're talking here about legal rights, not philosophical rights. I didn't say you "should" have that right, I said that you do: reverse engineering is legal (at least in the US, and I believe in most countries), unless you assent to a contract prohibiting it. Similarly for the right of first sale, the right to publish reviews of software, "fair use" copying rights, etcetera. —Steven G. Johnson 07:28, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

If someone believes these lines are important for the encyclopedia entry, you should note that the above line is a paraphrase of the preable to the GPL: "The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it." Thus, if you really want to see the line in this entry, I think you should directly quote it instead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mshonle (talk • contribs) 04:14, 19 April 2004.

I think it's important to make a distinction between how the GPL works and how a typical EULA works, but as a factual matter, not so much as a description of the intent of the GPL framers. However, this is a complicated issue and should probably go in the "contract vs. license" section. —Steven G. Johnson 22:23, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)


See also this review of the Microsoft EULA's restrictions. The "analysis" in that article is indisputably advocating a certain editorial point of view, but their list of restrictions that the EULA imposes on the user is a matter of fact, and it is equally fact that many of those restrictions prevent you from doing things that copyright law would normally allow to a person possessing a legal copy of a work. The same is not true for the GPL. Please don't confuse this with arguments over whether those restrictions are "right" in a philosophical sense. —Steven G. Johnson 07:28, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Freshmeat and Sourceforge "bias"?

The article states parenthetically that these two sites are owned by OSDN, which "strongly advocates" the GPL. First of all, what is the evidence that OSDN strongly advocates the GPL relative to other free-software licenses?

You're joking right? Have you ever read slashdot, also owned by OSDN? There is no "The articles here do not reflect the opinions of OSDN or any of its parent companies." type disclaimer anywhere to be seen.
Slashdot is a joke, your point?
No, my point was clearly stated above.
If they have an editorial bias, it's towards flamewars that attract posters, and they know that any posting about the GPL is liable to rile people up...whether it's "pro" or "con". Besides, since their journalistic or editorial work on most articles is roughly nil, it's hard to see the site as representing anyone other than their readers, who provide most of the flames. And the site has been like that since well before OSDN. Besides, see below.
There is also the fact that OSDN owns linux.com. Or how about the latest headlines on newsforge.com, also owned by OSDN.
"To Linux or not to Linux"
"Researchers envision the Linux of routing"
"Banks look at Linux switch"
"Linux: unfit for national security?"
"Linux insurance goes on sale"
"First [linux] InstallFest in Egypt"
"Linux Security Controversy"
and a poll "SCO has how long left to live?"
Yup, OSDN indisputably has a commercial interest in Linux and software for Linux. But "Linux" in this sense is the whole operating system, which is not under a particular license, nor does promoting the operating system equate to promoting a particular license.
I disagree. I've seldom seen anyone advocate Linux without at least a passing mention of the GPL or some of its ideals.
It is perfectly possible to write non-GPL software for Linux, so it's not intrinsically biased...if you see the GPL mentioned a lot with Linux, maybe it's because the GPL is a very popular license for software on that operating system?
This is a straw man argument. Additionally, assuming that the GPL is a popular license for software on Linux, it doesn't mean that the GPL is popular on all platforms.
(Indeed, many promotions of Linux, including on OSDN, tout proprietary software like Oracle on Linux.) In any case, since Linux is the most popular open-source OS (yes, I know about the BSDs, but they don't have the numbers Linux does, not counting OS X which is mainly proprietary...this is not a value judgement, just a statement of fact),
It that case, would you care to back up that statement with some facts?
Oh, give me a bloody break—now you're just making trouble.
No, I made a legitimate request asking you to backup your assertations.
Any reasonable person would concede that Linux is more popular than BSD; just look around.
This is a logical fallacy, you are shifting the burden of proof.
Google gives 98mil hits for "Linux", 6mil for "BSD".
That only proves that the word "Linux" occurs more frequently than "BSD".
It's easy to find studies of Linux market share, but most stories on market share don't even list BSD separately—e.g. this 2003 IDC survey was summarized in the press as 23% Linux, 11% "Unix", 55% Windows, 10% Netware, and 1% remaining (I assume that BSD is some fraction of the 11%, which also includes Solaris et al.).
From the article you quote: "Linux's share of new paid license shipments in 2002 increased to 23.1 percent from 22.4 percent in 2001." (emphasis mine)
Searches on Factiva and Lexis-Nexis news databases reveal countless more articles mentioning "Linux" than "BSD" in the last year (more than 30 times...I can't give an exact statistic quickly because they return only a limited number of search results at a time).
Articles mentioning Linux do not reflect its popularity.
This is not the most likely conclusion.
I have nothing against BSD, it's just clearly not as widespread. —Steven G. Johnson 09:41, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for proof that BSD is "clearly not as widespread".
Sigh...yes, despite the fact that every where you turn, "Linux" pops up more frequently than "BSD", it is conceivably possible that BSD is secretly more popular. But this is not the most parsimonious conclusion to draw, and the burden of proof for violating Occam's razor falls upon the claimant. Anyway, I'm not going to waste time arguing this with you, as I doubt you'll be convinced by anything short of a multi-million-dollar multi-year study to prove the obvious, and this argument has ceased to be relevant to the article. —Steven G. Johnson 18:00, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
Darrien 10:12, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)
it's almost inevitable that any popular listings of free/open-source software will be associated with Linux to some degree.

Second of all, even if that claim is true, what relevance does this have for the statistics on projects listed on FM and SF, since the project listings are maintained by volunteers not affilated with OSDN? —Steven G. Johnson 22:23, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

The fact that OSDN strongly supports Linux and the GPL will tend to draw in like minded thinkers.
Darrien 04:08, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

Linux != GPL.

What does this statement mean?
How about the obvious, that you're conflating association with Linux with promotion of the GPL.
How do you find such a cryptic statement to be obvious? Why not just say that you believe that I'm conflating Linux with the promotion of the GPL?

If you think that the tens of thousands of free-software projects listed on those sites are not representative of free-software development, where are all the "representative" FOSS developers listing their programs?

Assuming that your use of the term "FOSS" means "Free/Libre Open Source Software", I never said such a thing. I said that they are not representative of the GPLs popularity.

If you look at BSD software listings (which might arguably be biased against GPL software, and which are arguably less representative since they are listings for particular OSes, and less-popular OSes than Linux to boot), NetBSD lists about 4600 packages (no license statistics) and FreeBSD lists 10703 ports. Even if you assume that all of the FreeBSD ports are non-GPL and and that all are not listed on FM or SF, when combined with the SF listings you still have almost 60% GPL usage. And a quick spot check reveals that many of the Free/NetBSD ports/packages are indeed also listed on Freshmeat, so the above assumptions are excessively conservative. —Steven G. Johnson 07:28, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

There are also some other statistics (most of them somewhat older) at this essay. I realize that it's difficult to get reliable statistics,

That is the exact point I am trying to make. It's not possible to get reliable statistics, therefore, you cannot claim with any degree of reliability that the GPL is "The most popular" or "Very popular".
Any reasonable definition of "very popular" would include being used for tens of thousands of projects. —Steven G. Johnson 09:15, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
Absurd. If we assume that to be true then we must also assume that a religion followed by tens of thousands of people is very popular.
If there were only tens of thousands of people on the Earth, that would indeed be a reasonable statement. And, in the case of free software, every available listing of such software, from FreeBSD to Debian to Freshmeat to Tucows, lists no more than tens of thousands of items. Please don't dig in your heels in such an unreasonable way, so that every obvious point must be debated with you. —Steven G. Johnson 18:03, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
Darrien 10:12, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

but I think the implied effect of the alleged pro-GPL bias of OSDN on FM/SF statistics is overstated.

Darrien 08:57, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

There are several studies claimed in the current version of the article. Specifically:

"A 2001 survey of Red Hat Linux 7.1 found that 50% of the source-code lines were licensed under the GPL."
"A 1997 survey of Metalab, then the largest free-software archive, showed that the GPL accounted for about half of the licenses used."

These studies need to be cited somewhere in the article, or they will be removed.

Darrien 09:12, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

Both of these surveys are referenced in the [2] link, which is already referenced by the article. If you want to add inline citation information, go ahead. —Steven G. Johnson 09:15, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "More restrictive"

Darrien, you keep changing the sentence:

The GPL differs from non-copyleft free-software licenses, such as the BSD or MIT Licenses, in that the latter allow derivative works to be distributed under more restrictive terms.

because, you say, the words "more restrictive" sound "POV". The only problem with your argument is that this statement is a precise statement of fact, which should not be subject to controversy, and all of your proposed replacement terms are more vague.

You have proposed writing, for example, that non-copyleft licenses allow derivative works under "different" terms, or "with additional terms". Both of these statements, while correct, are more vague than "more restrictive" — non-copyleft licenses do not allow you to remove terms, or to add terms that effectively remove restrictions (e.g., "If you send me $100 you are exempt from clause 4"). "More restrictive terms" is more precise in that it does not permit such incorrect interpretations. You claim it is "POV", but you haven't provided any argument as to how it implies anything that is subject to debate.

—Steven G. Johnson 17:49, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

In theory, you are correct. But in practice, you really can't distribute derivatives under less restrictive terms either, as you would need permission of the other copyright holders to do so.

Also, if "under different terms" is correct, then it is more specific, not more vague.

After some thought, I came up with this phrasing: "The GPL differs from non-copyleft free-software licenses, such as the BSD or MIT Licenses, in that the latter do not require derivative works to be distributed under identical terms." I think that addresses both points, and is actually more accurate than any phrasing which uses the opposite phrasing, since what the GPL actually says is that you must license derivatives under the GPL, not that you can't license them under X, Y, or Z. anthony (see warning)

? You're not contradicting me—my point was precisely that a non-copyleft license doesn't allow you to change to less restrictive terms, only to more restrictive terms.
Re-think your logic. "Under different terms" more vague because it includes both correct and incorrect interpretations—it doesn't give you enough information to distinguish between the two. (In the same way that if X is a square, it is correct to say that X is a rectangle but more vague.)
Your version only implies that the BSD versions differ from the GPL in that they do not require identical terms, which is semantically equivalent to saying that they allow different terms, which suffers the same vagueness problem as before. —Steven G. Johnson 21:38, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
I disagree with all your points. This phrasing is less vague, not more vague. The GPL requires that you must license derivatives under identical terms. It does not say anything about more or less restrictive terms. The currently phrasing, "The GPL differs from non-copyleft free-software licenses, such as the BSD or MIT Licenses, in that the latter allow derivative works to be distributed under more restrictive terms than themselves, whereas the GPL requires identical terms.", while confusing, is pretty much accurate though. The confusion is that you can license GPL derivatives under more restrictive terms, as long as you also license them under the GPL (hmm, I need to change "distributed" to "licensed" as I believe that's what you meant). anthony (see warning) 20:36, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Is that last sentence true? If I derive from a GPL'd work, I'm not aware that I'm allowed to distribute it under any license other than the GPL, regardless of whether I also offer a GPL'd version. The only situation in which it would make sense to do that would be if I were charging extra for the GPL'd version (since otherwise nobody would be interested in the more restrictively licensed version), and I'm pretty sure that's explicitly prohibited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.86.133.45 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 9 September 2004.
No, the last sentence ("The confusion is that you can license GPL derivatives under more restrictive terms, as long as you also license them under the GPL") is not true. The GPL very clearly places a restriction upon anyone who redistributes the program requiring them to do so under the GPL. Section 1 of the GPL requires you to pass along the copyright and license details intact ("... provided that you ...; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program."). Section 4 requires that you only distribute the program under the terms of the GPL ("You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License."). Section 6 conveys a license from the original licensor directly to anyone you distribute the program to, and prevents you from interfering with that license ("Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."). The combination of the three results in anyone you give the code to receiving a license under the GPL, no matter how you give it to them, so long as you are not the copyright holder. As noted elsewhere, the copyright holder is not bound by the GPL because they did not receive the code under the GPL, instead they created it. RossPatterson 18:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved comment from anon

Im noticing that the GPL can be manipulated by the copyright holder, for example: asterisk refusing contributions, and montavista http://www.mvista.com/ restricting the distribution of there modifications, so really the GPL is not as good as it seems on the surface. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.29.157.36 (talk • contribs) 2006-05-12 04:22:32.

How does Asterisk refusing contributions "manipulate" the GPL? They have no obligation to accept contributions, and they cannot stop you forking their code and releasing your own version with your changes included.
How is MontaVista restricting the distribution of their modifications to GPL'd software? I had a poke around their site and could find nothing at all pertinent. They even link back to Wikipedia for a definition of Open Source, which is nice. — Haeleth Talk 12:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] purport to

"In contrast, end-user licenses for proprietary software rarely grant these rights, and may even purport to restrict activities, such as reverse engineering, that are normally permitted."

I added "purport to", because EULAs which claim to ban reverse engineering are not always enforcible. I wonder if this sentence isn't redundant though, as proprietary software by definition doesn't grant these rights. anthony (see warning)

Proprietary software can sometimes grant limited versions of these rights, e.g. to distribute binary copies without royalty. But I think the main distinction is that the GPL strictly expands your rights under copyright law, whereas EULA's often purport to restrict at least some rights you might otherwise have (it's true that the enforceability of such provisions is debated in some circles). This is true for most (all?) free-software/open-source licenses, of course, but it comes up most often in the case of the GPL because people more often question the GPL's enforceability. —Steven G. Johnson 21:49, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
Am I missing something, or is your comment completely unrelated to the change I made? Or were you referring to my second sentence, in which case I still don't understand how your point is relevant. Proprietary software by definition does not grant rights that the GPL does. anthony (see warning) 20:41, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] GPL upheld in German court

From news.com.com:

"The case involves netfilter/iptables, open-source networking software for tasks such as firewalls for protecting a network from unwanted traffic. Harald Welte, one of the main netfilter authors, sued a Dutch company, Sitecom, alleging it used the software in a wireless network product without abiding by the terms of the General Public License (GPL)." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimregan (talk • contribs) 19:21, 25 April 2004.

[edit] Changes by MrJeff

here, this needs to be explained, provide info from official sources such as Stallman or Eben Moglen that it will not be complete, until this it is just speculation and FUD. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:57, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

I agree, at the very least this should be cited, and attributed if not from an official source. anthony (see warning)
GPL v3 will be incompatible - but that doesn't matter, because the value of calling it "GPL" and it being issued by the FSF is that the typical licensing says "GPL v2 or later" - so the program becomes multiply-licensed. That Linux is explicitly under v2 and only v2 is important, however, and should probably be noted. v3 could do with a section - David Gerard 21:58, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Of course, we could say it is in planning and that it's being worked on and numerous issues are being worked out, see the allegro GPL for example which is sort of a testing ground for the FSF. However, unless you're stallman or something has transpired in the last few days you dont really know how v3 will be, i even think he doesnt know yet. So anything about the GPLv3 other than it is in progress would just be speculation that doesnt belong in an encylopedia article.
If people want to write something fine. Just know that anything about the GPLv3 at this point other than in progress and done when it's done is factually incorrect as nothing has been released on it yet, and statements that it will be incompatable are certanly incorrect. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:43, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)
I'm happy to wait until the final v3 comes out if you like. Stallman and others have said (unoffically I will admit) that the GPL v3 will include various explicit clauses about licensing patents. Due to the design of the GPL v2, the only way a licence can be "GPL compatable" is if the software can be relicensed under v2, and notes about patents will invalidate this. Linus has also said that the GPL won't move from v2. However, there is no harm in waiting until when v3 comes out, in 30 years or so ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrjeff (talk • contribs) 06:22, 26 July 2004.
I changed the release date based on my wager with Bradley Kuhn, FSF's associate director. Also, I changed "will" to "may" for license provisions; nothing is fixed. Finally, added a bit about Trusted Computing based on Moglen's statements at FSF's associate member meeting in 2003. --User:Novalis

[edit] Changes to a paragraph by David Gerard

The licensee is only required to provide the source code to people who receive [...]. (This may be changed for version 3 of the GPL.)

Would you like to cite some sources on that one, or alternatively remove it. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:19, 2004 Jul 8 (UTC)
Yes, I'd like to cite this article, in the ==History== section. Note the last paragraphs and the external pages linked as references - David Gerard 17:00, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] About the Softpanorama link

An IP address has added a link to a Softpanorama article about the GPL. I haven't read that article but Softpanorama have previously published troll articles about Richard Stallman and Eric Raymond (and maybe others). The Softpanorama format is to mix two parts fact with one part non-verifiable fiction ("Joe wrote X, was awarded Y, and wets the bed" kinda thing).

I don't know if this article contains such torpedos (maybe "GPL can't be commercial", "GPL was written by communists", "GPL is viral", etc.), but I just thought I should mention my previous experience with Softpanorama articles. Gronky 14:31, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The section "1.6.1. Twelve Candidates for the Inclusion into GPL FAQ" has serious errors Example: "Does GPL approves some types of social behavior that generally contradict the logic of the copyright law and academic ethics principles ?"

The GPL, as a document, is unable to approve of anything. Does it permit behaviors which "contradict the logic of copyright law"? Yes and no, of course. It doesn't permit copyright infringement (duh -- how could it?), but it does challenge the structure of copr. law.

"How does the right to redistribute the code conflicts with the security of the code?"

This is widely discussed elsewhere, in a much less POV fashion (see Schneier, for instance).

"What number of GPL amendments still preserves the compatibility of a product with other "more pure" GPL products without violating paragraph 4 of GPL"

This is a major misunderstanding for two reasons: 1. There is no compatibility problem, because the Linux license is strictly more permissive than the pure GPL, and all such licenses are compatible (see the actualFAQ). 2. Section 4 of the GPL is the wrong section to cite -- 2b and 6 would be more correct.

For these reasons and many more (I don't have space to discuss all that's wrong with question 4), I've removed the link.

I'm well aware that I'm not exactly neutral on this issue, but in this case, I think I'm justified in removing the link. I know that not everything Wikipedia links to will be accurate, but in general, it's better to link to more accurate than less accurate information. Novalis 08:24, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] About Moglen

Eben didn't join Stallman at FSF until after GPLv2 was released. He is working on v3. Novalis

[edit] Computer law category?

If the GPL belongs in Category:Computer law, then don't all free software licenses belong there? And if they do, then shouldn't Category:Free software licenses simply be a sub-category of Category:Computer law? -- Khym Chanur 05:23, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] District court for MySQL AB v Progress NuSphere

Now, given that I don't know the case reference, saying that it was in the U.S. district court, first circuit is misleading since there's, I believe, 5 districts in that circuit. Looking it up here, it mentions Judge Saris in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Can anyone verify that this was where the case was tried? It sounds like they settled prior to going to the Appeals Court, which would be the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. --Ricky81682 04:13, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

I can (and do!) verify it; I was at the hearing. They actually settled prior to a final judgement from the district court. Novalis 23:31, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Added clarity

I think this version of the article adds clarity, at least one person disagrees, what do others think? How is the latest version of the BSD license not public domain exactly? Why did the original clean up get rid of the statement that I think encapsulates the differing philosophies between the BSD and GPL camps, namely "restrictions" vs "protections". What about all the other clean ups? zen master T 15:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Read the BSD license. It requires that some invariant (copyright notice and license) go with the distribution. BSD is not a Copyleft license, but it's clearly not Public Domain, either.
  • The GPL offers rights to anyone and everyone, even if they happen to be neither developer nor "consumer" (btw, are software users "consumers" now?).
  • Replacing "require" with "use" relating to EULAs doesn't make much sense (I agree with adding 'companies', though).
  • Adding "or protections" seems gratitous and confusing. For the author of a derivative work, the copyleft clause is a restriction. And that's what the text already says right there. If you must mention "protections", please make it clear that it's a different take on the same clause and not relating to some different clause. Rl 16:59, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree "public domain" is not ideal but I think it's more accurate than what was there before which was "permissive". BSD is basically "public domain" with a few minor added conditions like keeping original license with the software and docs, plus an advertising clause which was notably dropped from the more recent version of the BSD license, right? For GPL comparative discussion purposes the BSD is a "public domain" license but I am not advocating changing the BSD license article to that. The point of comparing the GPL with the BSD license in the article is to contrast the licenses.

The point about offering rights to both developers and end users is important, that is how freedoms are protected in that it assumes everyone is equal, no one has the right to take away another's freedom if everyone has equal rights, the license tries to encapsulate that. Saying "all" doesn't point out the explicit nature of a user/consumer and developer having equal footing under the license. I agree we can improve the wording on this point.

"require" seems like the more appropriate word, are proprietary software companies "using" their licenses against end users? "Using" does not factor in an end user role in the license process. More accurate to say end users are required to agree to the EULAs before using the software, which is true.

As far as "or protections" goes that is exactly how the pro GPL people would characterize the GPL's derrivative works clauses, whereas pro-BSD people would say they are "restrictions", the article should convey both ways of looking at the license, shouldn't it? zen master T 17:16, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I remain entirely unconvinced. "Permissive" is a perfectly good word, while "Public Domain" is wrong, but you would have us believe that it's "more accurate"?? In many jurisdictions, EULAs are not enforceable; companies would like people to agree, that's all; how is that "required"? And while I tend to favor the GNU GPL over the BSD license in most cases, I prefer to call a restriction a restriction (why don't you rewrite "requires derivative works" in the sentence before that to "entitles users of derivative works" which would be much more positive as well?).Rl 17:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That is the point, you say they are restrictions while there is another perfectly valid interpretation that they are protections, so the article should include both. BSD is public domain as far as contrasting with the GPL goes, please describe how it isn't? If EULAs are not enforceable how are they being "used" exactly? "entitles" is ok by me. zen master T 18:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master changed "The purpose of the GPL is to grant the right... to the recipients of the program" to "The purpose of the GPL is to grant both developers and consumers the right...". This is not an improvement. The GPL only grants rights to people who receive a program; developers and consumers in general do not receive this rights. The right to keep modifications private is an important feature of the GPL.

Code issued under the BSD License is copyrighted; it is explicitly not public domain, which has a very specific legal meaning. The BSD License comes with certain terms; for example, a disclaimer of warranty. The use of the term "permissive" to describe the BSD License is almost canonical. For instance, from the GNU website says (emphases mine):

  • X11 License: This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.
  • Public Domain: Being in the public domain is not a license--rather, it means the material is not copyrighted and no license is needed. Practically speaking, though, if a work is in the public domain, it might as well have an all-permissive non-copyleft free software license. Public domain status is compatible with the GNU GPL.
  • Modified BSD license: This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.

Hope this helps. -- CYD

CYD is generally correct here. I should note that the grant that modifiers grant (2b and 6) is to the world, but only goes into effect upon distribution (2b) -- Novalis 10:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, the BSD License is not "public domain" I agree now, but stating that the BSD is "more permissive" than the GPL is POV (especially if "or protections" is also removed from the article). I cleaned that up and made some other hopefully less controversial changes. Let me know if you disagree. zen master T 12:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Just how is it POV? -- CYD
"permissive" is presumming the pro BSD interpretation of the GPL, see what I wrote above, the pro GPL people would say the derivative works clauses are protections, whereas pro BSD people and others argue they are restrictions. "conditions" is an improvement but I am not sure about your other changes.
Why did you put "freedoms" in quotation marks? zen master T 13:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Also, if you persist in using "permissive" then I am going to have to insist "restrictions or protections" be put back. That section of the article is contrasting the differences between the BSD and GPL licenses, so that phrase IS the *key* difference. People that license their works under the BSD do not see any need for the GPL's "restrictions", whereas people that license their works under the GPL do see the need for "protections", see the distinction? We need to capture both ways of looking at the issue, rather than using the neutral middle of the road term "conditions" which misses the core issue.
You made a lot of changes to bottom parts of the article for your checkin comment to be just "clarifications". zen master T 13:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Even the GNU webpage describes the BSD and related licenses as simple and permissive -- they give the user a broad set of permissions, and impose a relatively small number of conditions. It's not POV to state that the GPL imposes more conditions - just look at how much longer it is. As for the dispute between the two camps, that is described in significant detail later on in the article. (Incidentally, I have released software under the GPL, and I think of myself as a pro GPL person.) -- CYD
I left the word permissive in there, but if we have a section that contrasts the BSD with the GPL then I think "restrictions or protections" is the essence of the contrast, please make a case for disagreement on this specific point. You being "pro-GPL" has nothing to do with accurately capturing the essence of the contrast inside the article. zen master T 13:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GPL simply stated

I think the following captures the GPL simply but CYD keeps reverting this change without stating why (please do here), what do others think?

The purpose of the GPL is to grant everyone the right to copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs and source code freely. It requires that all changes and derivative works be distributed freely as well with the source code made publically available.

We can add something to the effect of "It requires [under copyright law] that all changes and derivative works be distributed freely..." zen master T 13:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See my comments above: The GPL only grants rights to people who receive a program; developers and consumers in general do not receive this rights. The right to keep modifications private is an important feature of the GPL. -- CYD
Uhhh, that is not a feature of the GPL that is how copyright law works (the GPL IS a copyright license). I am no longer saying "developers and consumers" you reverted my change that said "everyone", why? What is wrong with using the word "freely"? I think that word is good because it encapsulates free as in freedom. zen master T 13:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I won't let myself be dragged into an edit war, but I want to state clearly that I do not agree with the changes that are claimed to "clarify" things. Licenses "grant" rights, they don't "encapsulate" them. How could this possibly clarify anything? You need to repeat the term "license", BSD by itself is not correct. Etc. pp. The only change that has some merit is "like" to "such as". Rl 18:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You fail to note that many of the changes the last day or so have been accepted without hassle, I think we are working towards improvement. Everyone's concerns are being addressed. The "encapsulate" is refering to the list of freedoms specifically -- that list does indeed encapsulate what is granted (at verbose length) in the GPL. We should rewrite the BSD sentence so we don't have to write "license" twice, which is annoying. zen master T 18:19, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Update: Rl, I made changes based on the points you raised above, let me know what you think. zen master T 18:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about my earlier rant. I just fail to see the need for many changes you propose, and I am only objecting to those that I think make things worse. The BSD license sentence is alright now I guess. But this encapsulation thingy is only getting worse: You say above that the list in the article encapsulates what is granted in the GPL, but the article states that the GPL encapsulates something. See the difference? I still fail to see what was wrong with "grant" in the first place. Secondly, the GPL does not do a "grant of copyright". Copyrights remain with their owner -- the GNU GPL is a license that grants certain rights under certain conditions. Among those rights is a right to redistribute, but a right to make a copy is not a copyright. Also, you removed "the recipients"; as CYD pointed out before, the GPL only grants those rights to people who receive software governed by that license. We need to mention somewhere that changes to GPL'ed software need not be shared as long as they are neither published nor distributed.Rl 19:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, the freedoms lists is what the GPL is trying to encapsulate under copyright law but your criticism is valid. What I mean by grant is "grant of usage" but you are right it's not clear. It might be more accurate to say "the GPL is encapsulated by..." but that sounds funny, how about "Simply stated, the GPL is a copyright license that attempts to encapsulate the following freedoms", instead of encapsulate we could use "protect" or "ensures" or something better. The point i was trying to make was that the list of freedoms isn't what is being "granted" in the GPL, rather, the GPL was created with the aim of achieving the freedoms in the list (perhaps chicken vs egg). What do you mean when you say the right to make a copy is not a copyright? I agree we should add something to the effect that derivative works need not be shared unless they are distributed but that is true for all copyrighted works, that point is not specific to the GPL, right? zen master T 19:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'd remove "under copyright law". The sentence starts with "the purpose"; copyright is a circumstance or a means. Your suggestion "the GPL is a copyright license" seems a better way to mention copyright (btw: Copyright license, anyone?). -- What I meant is that if I grant you to make a copy of my work under certain conditions, I am still the owner of the copyright; all you got is a copyright license; IOW, copyright is an exclusive right. -- Actually, proprietary software typically prohibits any changes to the code, so you never get to wonder whether you may or must share them. However, in some jurisdictions running a program is considered copying (from harddisc to RAM), so requiring the publication of private changes would be legally enforceable. That private changes don't have to be shared was an about-face for RMS and it is also important because it is now famously a loophole for web service providers. -- Please drop "encapsulate", that word doesn't make sense here.Rl 21:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lesser General Public License

The fact that LGPL is used for libraries is misleading and should be clarified, or removed entirely leaving only a link to LGPL article. gnu.org Helix84 18:46, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, lots of people do use the LGPL for their libraries when the GPL might be better. The common thought is LGPL for libraries, GPL for apps. The article should acknowledge this, as well as noting the FSF's view that of where the LGPL is appropriate. -- Novalis 20:10, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please clarify re: "viral" claim

I still can't figure out whether or not if you include a tiny snippet of GPLed source code in your non-GPL program, that you have to make your entire program subject to the GPL as a result? The section on the "viral" claim seems to dodge around this issue without addressing exactly what I'm asking here (and I think this question is the fundamentally most important point of getting a grasp of the "GPL is viral" claim), so all I have to go by is "Microsoft says vs. Wikipedia says" and I don't think I can trust either source at the moment to interpret the GPL in a clear, straightforward manner. Can someone clarify this once and for all without running around in circles, PLEASE?

edit: and just to clarify myself, I recognize: "The GPL is clear in requiring that all derivative works of GPL'ed code must themselves be GPL'ed.". But lets say a program has foo.cpp and bar.cpp and poop.cpp, all linked into one program. foo.cpp and bar.cpp are 100% original, but poop.cpp has a tiny snippet of GPL code. Does the GPL only affect poop.cpp and require me to only release the sources to it and it alone, or do I have to release ALL sources -- even ones not derived from GPL -- just because they're in the same program that did use a snippet of GPL code? This could use some clarification in the article. --I am not good at running 07:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

If they're statically linked, you are definately not supposed to release it if one of those parts is GPL'd and the rest is not. If dynamically linked, only poop.??? would need to be GPL'd. This is suggested by a nice Novell article right here. However, they also point out (and I've heard this one too) that the dynamic linking arguement is not completely agreed upon. Clarification in the article would be handy in any case. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:27, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
There is this in the article that does do some to explain it, and not too poorly: "One of the key disputes related to the GPL is whether or not non-GPL software can dynamically link to GPL libraries. The GPL is clear in requiring that all derivative works of GPL'ed code must themselves be GPL'ed. However, it is not clear whether an executable that dynamically links to a GPL library should be considered a derivative work." ...
... It should be clear, however, that if you link all of the code into one single executable (including GPL'd and non-GPL'd code) you are violating the license as it really is a derivitive work, one program containing GPL code within. *shrug* -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
The GPL punts to copyright law on the definition of a derivative work. FSF says that dynamic linking does create a derivative work. Others (notably Matt Asay) disagree. It's never directly gone to court; each side has its pet cases and theories. However, FSF and others have successfully enforced the GPL's dynamic linking provisions outside of court. -- Novalis 04:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Refactoring and NPOV-editing of the "GPL-related disputes" section

I was very hesitant about contributing to this article, since I know what a flamewar-generator of an issue it can be. I just want to state up-front that I don't have a "pro-" or "anti-" GPL agenda, I have used both in the past and BSD license in the past and feel that they both have strengths in different situations. I am not a zealot or a vandal, and hope that my contribution will be viewed as objective. I welcome feedback in the same spirit!

The following are edits I have just made to the article, with my rationale for each:

  • Moving the discussion on the GPL's "viral" nature: this is a much better fit for the "GPL-related disputes" section, containing contraversies and criticisms surrounding the GPL, than it was under the "GPL is a license" section, which discusses the legal subtleties between a license and contract in certain Common Law nations.

  • NPOV edits in the discussion on the GPL's "viral" nature:
    • The original text takes people who use the term "viral" in discussing the GPL, and labels them as "opponents of free software". That was obviously an non-objective swipe at those parties. Most of this particular GPL-criticism comes from propents of BSD-style permissive open source licenses, which are also recognized as "free software".

    • This entire paragraph, as originally written, was transparently promoting a non-NPOV set of opinions (after calling the parties "opponents of free software", the second sentence begins "This is an attempt to reinforce [a] mistaken belief, for the purpose of discouraging GPL acceptance...". In re-working this paragraph, I attempted to keep the language impartial and objective... presenting the controversies and their point-counterpoints without passing any form of judgement on them.

    • In keeping with the spirit of the above bullet-point, I changed the paragraph so that it does not completely dismiss the "viral" dispute out-of-hand. I feel that the original text "fudged" matters a bit in its rejection of that criticism. The text described it as "a mistaken belief... that if GPL licensed code is combined with a company's proprietary code, then that company could be forced to release their software under the GPL, which is false and impossible". Of course, this is very much true and possible... one could easily claim that it's the entire point behind the creation of the GPL!

      The very next sentence directly contradicted that claim, saying "The GPL simply requires that all copies and derivative works of GPL licensed software also be licensed under the GPL". I'm not sure if the previous author was confused about the definition of "derivative works", or if I am... but as I understand it, a piece of software is considered a "derived work" with virtually any inclusion of GPL'ed code (including dynamic linking to GPL'ed libraries).

      The original text skirts around the issue by misrepresenting a technicality, that a company would only be forced to release their derived software under the GPL if the copyright holder forced them to do so. However, the "default" behavior of the GPL is for derived works to be automatically GPL'ed... negotiating the right to opt out of the GPL (as with Trolltech's QT library, for example) is an exception to the default GPL behavior that the copyright holder cannot be forced to accept. Thus, it is not a matter of the copyright holder forcing an author to GPL a derived work... it is a matter of the GPL forcing that, leaving the copyright holder open to the possibility of negotiating alternate terms if they so wish.

    • In the last paragraph of the "GPL-related disputes" section, I described the dual-licensing negotiation I just mentioned. However, I would like to research this further and get some feedback... as it may not be completely accurate. If my GPL'ed work is derived from another GPL'ed work, do I have the legal right to offer a dual-license? It seems that this would not be permissible without the permission from the original author from which my work derived. Therefore, the "viral" argument may be even more accurate than I've portrayed it... as it would be impossible to use a non-GPL license without negotiating alternate terms with EVERY author at EVERY level in the heredity of a codebase, going back to the first work to derive from GPL'ed code. Effectively, it would be near-impossible to dual-license a GPL'ed work unless you were the first author to apply the GPL to any of its code. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.217.2.225 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 30 July 2005.

[edit] "Free" vs. "open source"?

I recently made a minor edit (20:41, 30 July 2005) for the purpose of clarifying some blurry language between the terms "free software" and "open source software". My edits consisted of:

A few hours later, another user completely reverted those edits with the comment 'I'm afraid calling free software "a particular type of open source software" doesn't clarify anything'. I'm not sure I understand the grievance, and I certainly don't understand why the edits were reverted wholesale (did the user really take issue with "Open Source" not being capitalized also?). I have reinserted those edits... if any user feels strongly about it, I hope that we can hash it out here in the Talk page so I can understand exactly where they're coming from and work with them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SteveAtlanta (talk • contribs) 23:34, 30 July 2005.

[edit] free software as 'subset' to open source

this can not be the case since i understand that the free software movement had emerged before the open source movement and that the open source movement had deviated from the free software movement because of different philosophies. eric.s.raymond himself had written software for the free software movement before the creation of the open source initiative. therefore i shall change this "a subset of open source software" to "of which open source software is a subset" (el magnifico 21:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC))

This has nothing to do with precedence. "Open Source" and "Free Software" (as defined by the Open Source Initiative and the Free Software Foundation, respectively) are a set of criteria by which any software may be evaluated, even software that pre-dates those criteria. As the definitions are currently applied, the set of software meeting the free-software criteria is a strict subset (because of one or two exceptional cases) of the set of software meeting the open-source criteria. —Steven G. Johnson 17:17, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
maybe you should remove the statement of 'subset'; free software and open source declare themselves as 'different', therefore a claim of one being a subset to the other would be void.
(el magnifico 16:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC))
Why? The statement is true. All free software (as defined by the FSF) is open source software (as defined by the OSI). It is just that not all open osurce software is free software. --R.Koot 16:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
you may perceive the statement as true, but that would mean that you are making a judgement and disregarding the organisations' self-perception. however, for the sake of your argument and steven's, if indeed there exists a subset, shouldn't the subset be open source software? i doubt that it's necessary to be stating 'subsets' in this article, as i understand the article is about the GPL, therefore, constrict the article to things relevant to the GPL, and not to who's subset to who.

(el magnifico 16:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC))

Since many people (including you) do not correctly understand the relation between FS and OSS, I think it would be something that should be made clear in the article. --R.Koot 18:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
then proceed to explain to me the true relation between FS and OSS. that statement is irrelevant, misleading and untrue. it must be removed.

(el magnifico 19:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC))

See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
The official definition of ``open source software," as published by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects, and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users. However, the obvious meaning for the expression ``open source software" is ``You can look at the source code." This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also includes semi-free programs such as Xv, and even some proprietary programs, including Qt under its original license (before the QPL).
--Quarl 09:35, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
i have changed the disputed section to clearly emphasise the basis of free software being refered to as a subset of open source software.

(el magnifico 11:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC))

poor english because 'you' wouldn't say it i presume.

(el magnifico 13:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC))


Seems I'm capable of writing poor English too, sorry. --R.Koot 14:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What is 'Public use'

Right recently there was this hoopla about GPL3. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but it's trying to close the loophole by which someone can modify and run GPL code as long as he doesn't distribute it? Because running GPL software on a web site is public use, not distribution? Surely that can't be right. Does it mean that under the current GPL, I could say, grab the wikipedia code, modifying a bit to add a payment gateway, then run my own wiki site for which I would charge? Similarly, does it mean I could use the MySQL server to power my site, but my code wouldn't have to be GPLed either? Adidas 12:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The current GPL applies only to distribution, not to use. So, yes, you could do both those things you mention. But because you must follow the terms when you distribute the code, you couldn't use the MySQL server to power a customer's site without either (a) giving the customer your source code under the GPL (which they could then redistribute under the same license), or (b) purchasing a commercial license from MySQL AB. See MySQL's commercial license page, where they describe the various things they think you have to pay them for: merely running MySQL on your own website is not mentioned.
The current general opinion is that if the application is running on hardware in your possession, and you are merely allowing other people to use it, you are not distributing the program, because the program stays permanently on your computer and your computer alone - nobody can actually take a copy and install it on theirs.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and the above is mere speculation. Get legal advice from a qualified professional if you need an opinion you can quote. User:Haeleth 12:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Haeleth - this cleared things up for me. Adidas 14:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] simple hypothetical question...

Person A creates a proprietary game engine. For X years it's closed-source and requires a hefty fee to license for other companies. When said game engine is no longer profitable, Person A releases the source under the GPL. Can Person A still demand hefty licensing fees if any other person were to make a commercial product out of the now-GPL'd engine code, or does the GPL "one-up" that and allow anyone to release a commercial game based on that engine as long as the modified source code is provided? (in general terms, does the GPL enforce "free as in beer" as much as it enforces "free as in speech", or does it only enforce "free as in speech"?) --I am not good at running 18:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It's usually assumed that you cannot add extra restrictions to code distributed under the GPL.
If you look at software that's distributed both under the GPL and commercial licenses, such as MySQL or Qt, you will find that the GPL option does not specify non-commercial use - the only difference is usually that the commercial licenses permit you to withhold your source code. In other words, these companies explicitly permit you to use their GPL'd code commercially if you abide by the terms of the GPL, even though their business is entirely built on selling commercial licenses for the same code! The implication is that their lawyers have examined the license and concluded that they cannot forbid commercial use.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and the above is mere speculation. Get legal advice from a qualified professional if you need an opinion you can quote. — Haeleth Talk 19:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
My answers (merging after edit conflict):
No, the copyright holder cannot demand hefty fees for someone else's commercial use of code released under the GPL.
Yes, the GPL allows commerical use of the code (by anyone).
It enforces free-as-in-speech, but when there is no monopoly on distribution, the free market causes goods tend toward the cost of the materials (zero). I can offer to sell you a copy of GNU/Linux for 1000 euro. But my friend can offer you the same for 1 euro, and someone else can offer it to you at no cost. The market sorts out the price - and it's usually close to zero. (If I sell one copy at 1000 euro, the person who bought it can then put copies for download on their website at not cost.)
This shouldn't be confused as meaning the GPL prevents money being made. As well as removing the monopoly on distribution (both commercial and non-commercial), the GPL also removes the monopoly on providing support, services, certification, and numerous other things. Many free software companies are able to hire hundreds of employees with the money they make from these activities. (Red Hat is the first company I can think of, last time I heard they had around 700 technical staff alone.) Gronky 19:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
If the developer is willing to release the commercial game under the GPL, and received the engine legitimately under the GPL, then their use is legal. However, most game publishers are not willing to do that, and if they want permission to use the engine without complying with the GPL, they'd still have to go back to the copyright holder and negotiate a different license that would allow that. Arker 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What monolithic tendencies?

I have removed the following text from the "Criticism" section of the article:

An unintended side-effect of the GPL delineating between "internal" derivative code and "external" linked libraries has been a pronounced tendency for software developed under this license to grow increasingly monolithic. Although this delineation purposefully curbs a "viral" licensing effect on all data which comes to interact with software licensed under the GPL, so as to permit friendly interaction with non-Free software and copyrighted data, concerns mount that this pull towards monolithic design promotes active developer resistence to object-oriented design and runs counter to the Unix spirit of chaining single-purpose tools.

My reasons for removing this are:

  1. No sources are cited. Weaselly claims like "concerns mount" are not a substitute for evidence.
  2. Counter-examples are trivial to find. For example, all of GNU's single-purpose Unix tools, as commonly used in pipelines, are under the GPL, and are not showing any tendency to grow monolithic.

The claims are also implausible. Increasing prominence of GUI applications, which are not trivial to chain together, is a more likely cause of the increase in monolithic designs than any licensing issue. Also, chaining single-purpose tools together, far from being made difficult by the GPL, is actively encouraged by the FSF as a way to avoid being required to license non-derivative code under the GPL. Implausible claims require supporting evidence all the more. — Haeleth Talk 14:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguate links

Could someone fix the common law and civil law links in section 3.3 "The GPL is a license"? Right now they point to disambiguation pages. I would do it myself but I'm not exactly sure what to correctly link to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.192.236.244 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 13 December 2005.

Done, back on 24 February 2006 by Qwertyus. RossPatterson 17:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed "software tax" from criticism section

I removed the following chunk from the "criticism" section:

Some critics quote a suggestion from the 1985 GNU Manifesto about a software tax as an alternative way to pay programmers for writing software:
All sorts of development can be funded with a Software Tax:
Suppose everyone who buys a computer has to pay x percent of the price as a software tax. The government gives this to an agency like the NSF to spend on software development.
But if the computer buyer makes a donation to software development himself, he can take a credit against the tax. He can donate to the project of his own choosing- often, chosen because he hopes to use the results when it is done. He can take a credit for any amount of donation up to the total tax he had to pay.
The total tax rate could be decided by a vote of the payers of the tax, weighted according to the amount they will be taxed on.
Although this scheme has never received the support it would need to become law, most developed countries have enacted a similar scheme with regards to music. Purchases of blank media, such as blank CDs, often includes a tax which is given to the music industry. The music industry requested this as "compensation" for lost sales due to illegal copying.

I don't see any actual criticism being put forward here. Some critics quote this suggestion -- and then what? I just can't see any reason the quote is mentioned. And additionally, the quote has nothing to do with the license a programmer might choose for their work, only with how they would get paid. -- magetoo 15:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The very concept of such a thing is repugnant to most of the audience, so merely mentioning its existence is criticism. It would be like criticising software for promoting the eating of babies. That would be a criticism even if you don't follow up by explaining why eating babies is a bad idea. Ken Arromdee 22:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Portal:Free software, GNU GPL is current featured article

Just to let you know. The purpose of the featuring an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. Gronky 16:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wallace Lost to the FSF

So I changed the article to reflect this - 212.219.39.100 13:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Practical Example needed

Mornin' all. Can we add an example scenario, using real-world software, on what rights a user has for closed source vs. GPL software? This would make the article more friendly to the lay reader. Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman(talk) 14:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] flagrant violation of GPL

Is there a term used in the industry to describe a company that deliberately violates GPL for their own profit?--Nowa 21:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the standard industry term is "pirate". -- Seitz 16:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Can you provide a reference showing usage or an example of a notorious GPL pirate--Nowa 02:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
http://www.open-mag.com/features/Vol_25/bsd-gpl/BSD-GPL.htm
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1471
Note: the term "pirate" is not specific to GPL violators. It is a general term for anyone who distributes a copyrighted work without adhereing to the terms and conditions of a license. -- Seitz 04:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. --Nowa 13:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there is such a term Daf 16:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
How can you say that in light of Seitz above and his references?--Nowa 13:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
As Seitz says, the term "pirate" is a generaly one used to refer to anyone, company or individual, who violates any license on any copyrighted work, GPL or not. Therefore, both are correct: Seitz is correct to say that "pirate" is the term that is used, and Daf is correct to say that there is no specific term that refers to a company that violates the GPL, but does not also refer to a teenager that installs Microsoft Windows on more than one PC. — Haeleth Talk 18:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Haeleth, thanks for the clarification. I get the impression that the open source community as a whole does not get too worked up over violations of the GNU or other license. Is this a fair statement?--Nowa 21:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the open source community gets very worked up over GPL and other free and open source license violations. After all, licenses and licensing are at the very heart of the Free and Open Source movements. -- Seitz 03:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Serial copyright violator. Arker 22:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confused

Can the software be used to turn a profit? For example, use a GNU GPL grpahics program to run a Poster Making shop. Angrynight 05:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it can be used to turn a profit. This is quite clear in the licence, and the licence is quite easy to read. Gronky 11:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DansGuardian

A recent edit added a new 'myth' entry, the one about not being able to sell GPL software, which was a good idea. But a specific example was used, and it's not a good example. DansGuardian isn't a good example of this, first because he is charging only for downloads, not for licensing, second because he's the sole copyright holder, and thus under no GPL obligations as he would be otherwise, and as the vast majority of GPL projects are. So I removed the example, but left the underlying point intact. Arker 18:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I find myself wondering whether the "myths" section is actually appropriate at all. While it is useful information and appears not to be incorrect or misleading, it does also seem to be erring on the unencyclopedic side of things: Wikipedia's role is to describe things, not to interpret them or to give legal advice. So I think the section is probably inappropriate as it stands. But I also think it would probably become appropriate if it were firstly adjusted to be descriptive of opinions, rather than presented as a statement of fact, and secondly given proper citations -- to show that the myths themselves are widely believed, as well as providing authoritative references for any debunking.
Examples of people spreading the myths can probably be found trivially on places like USENET or Slashdot, while the FSF's GPL FAQ could be a useful resource to quote for the official line.
Does this sound reasonable, or do other people not see any problem with the section as it stands? — Haeleth Talk 18:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. The GPL FAQ is a comprehensive, authoritative list of answers to misconceptions like these, e.g. download fees. It's worth mentioning that the GPL is commonly misunderstood but a link to the FAQ is the way to support it. Tiermensch 00:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] “Can Technical Tricks Circumvent the GPL” link

The old link to a news post by Stallman was really to an archived mailing list posting of somebody quoting him. I changed the link to point to the original posting itself in the Dejanews Google Groups archive. User:Gronky changed it back, calling the old link “canonical”. I disagree; the original article appears to have been a usenet post, and as such the most canonical link is to a archive of usenet, such as Google Groups. --193.11.177.2 04:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, sorry about that, I missed that detail. Gronky 09:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of Red Hat comment

I have removed the following text from the article:

The ability of a publisher to limit redistribution was called into question by the license for Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). This RHEL license requires a user to pay for every system on which they install any part of RHEL, even though many components of RHEL are distributed under the terms of the GPL [3]. This has led to questions whether the RHEL license violates the GPL.

Firstly, it is completely uncited. Secondly, it is misleading; Google can indeed find some people asking the question, but I can't find any examples that aren't immediately followed by someone else explaining that no, the Red Hat license does not violate the GPL.

Note that the "pay for every installation" clause is part of the support subscription contract. There is nothing in the GPL that says you cannot charge people to support your software. In fact, the FSF is quite explicit that they completely approve of this business model and see it as one of the valid ways for a software company to make money. The software license, meanwhile, contains the following text:

With the exception of certain image files identified in Section 2 below, the license terms for the components permit Client to copy, modify, and redistribute the component, in both source code and binary code forms. This agreement does not limit Client's rights under, or grant Client rights that supersede, the license terms of any particular component.

Hmm, I'm not sure exactly how this license is supposed to restrict your rights under the GPL when it contains a clause that explictly affirms those rights.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer (or a Red Hat employee), so take my opinions with the usual pinch of salt, but I see no compelling reason to keep this comment in the article, as it misleadingly suggests that there is a controversy where there is, in fact, none. — Haeleth Talk 11:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Haeleth is correct. I added the text from my memory of the discussion, and then hoped I or someone else could find the citation. I remember there being a much more drawn out discussion on some newsgroups and mailing lists, but I haven't been able to find a citeable source.
As for the validitity of the original controversy, it centered around Section 5 the RHEL service agreement, titled "Reporting and Inspection". This section states that:
  • Users must report all Installed Systems (Section 3 defines Installed Systems as systems running RHEL Software or any part of it).
  • Red Hat had the right to inspect the user's location to verify the number of Installed Systems.
  • If Red Hat found Installed Systems that were not coverered by a RHEL license agreement, Red Hat could bill the user for those additional systems.
That seems to be saying that if I take RHEL and install it on another one of my systems, I have to pay Red Hat for an additionl RHEL license. That seemed a violation of the GPL, and to contradict the later clause reaffirming the user's rights under the GPL.
However, after rereading the license, I see that it says that a user who installs RHEL on additional systems only has to pay Red Hat for any Services provided for that systems, such as technical support and access to the Red Hat Network software subscritption services. So, if I install RHEL Software on another system, but do not use the RHEL Services, it appears I don't owe Red Hat anything. That is consistent with your analysis, and I agree that it seems compliant with the GPL.
I expect much of the controversy also faded because those who wanted a free version of RHEL soon had other options, in the form of Fedora Linux from Red Hat or various RHEL clones, such as CentOS. These provided nearly the same software as RHEL and clearly did not require any payment to Red Hat.
-- Seitz 18:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
As an aside, re-reading my comment, I realise it may have come across as dismissive of your edit. Please let me assure you that I did not intend that.
After doing a little more reading myself, there seems to be more controversy than I initially thought; there isn't a controversy now, in that there is a consensus that everything's OK, but there do seem to be a lot of individuals who run into the Red Hat license and have a WTF moment. So it might, in fact, be useful to work something in to the article; at the very least, if we can find some of those extensive discussions you mention (and the archives must be out there somewhere!), then there should be some good sources to cite on the subject of the support-contract business model. (I'm thinking along the lines of replacing the "myths" bit with a section on GPL-related business models: refactoring the stuff about Trolltech and MySQL, and adding a paragraph on Red Hat-style support-driven businesses. This would all be very relevant to that.) — Haeleth Talk 21:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GPLv2 vs GPLv3 debate

I didn't add these links[4][5] to the page to avoid the page growing into a link farm, but there's a lot of debate about GPLv2 vs GPLv3 and I think these describe many current concerns nicely. Should the matters be explained in the article? Or would that emphasize the current situation too much? -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 18:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Linus et al have been complaining for the entire year, but none of it has been that notable to mention in the article. I'd like to see if it actually has any weight or substance to the situation. --69.165.73.238 19:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redistributing modfied code under the same name

I read in the preamble: "If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors' reputations."

Is this a part of the license or not, since its the preamble? Is someone, modifying and passing on without changing the name or clearly indicating that there is a modification, violating the GPL? tokyoahead 05:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The preamble is not legally binding, since it is not part of the list of terms and conditions. However, this is covered within the terms and conditions themselves in section 2(a):
You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
Therefore, if someone modifies the source code and distributes it without prominent notices stating that fact, they are in violation of the GPL. In practice, this usually means adding a comment at the start of the file that simply says something like "// Modified by Joe Bloggs, 1st April 2002, to fix compilation on Solaris" or whatever.
How this applies to binary distributions isn't immediately obvious to me. It would probably be sensible to include a notice in the documentation - it may or may not be required, but it has obvious pragmatic advantages (e.g. people will know who to go to for the source code).
What there certainly isn't is any requirement to change the program's name. Some licenses do have this requirement - the LaTeX license does - but the GNU GPL doesn't. Again, there are advantages to it if you have changed the way the program behaves significantly, but if all you've done is ported it to a different platform, there's unlikely to be any reason to change the name.
Note that I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. If you're in any serious doubt, you have three options: consult a lawyer, contact the FSF and ask them what the license is intended to require, or contact the author of the GPL'd software in question and ask them what form of notice they would consider adequate. — Haeleth Talk 10:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds about right. So far as I know, any issues with naming would fall under trademark laws which the GPL doesn't address at all (AFAIK). --Gwern (contribs) 18:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GPL criticism

From the article:

Critics of the GPL often describe it as being "viral", based on the GPL terms that all derived works must in turn be licensed under the GPL. Since the definition of "derived work" is commonly interpreted to include software containing GPLed code or dynamically linking to GPLed libraries (see above), the "virus" label comes from the view that the GPL forces its terms onto all other software whose authors choose to add GPLed code to their own. [citation needed] This is part of a philosophical difference between the GPL and permissive free software licenses such as the BSD-style licenses, which put fewer restrictions on derived works. While proponents of the GPL believe that free software should ensure that its freedoms are preserved in derivative works, others believe that free software should give its users the maximum freedom to redistribute it as they wish.

Where is the basis for this paragraph? Where is there a reference that "critics" of the GPL "often" describe it as being viral, and that they do so "based on the GPL terms that all derived works must in turn be licensed under the GPL"? Where is the reference as to the origin of the virus label? This paragraph is crap, and it's unreferenced, so I removed it. -anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.202.233.125 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 20 October 2006.

  • It's sourced and amended to reflect that source. All praise research. :) Steve block Talk 12:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Much better. Do you mind if I remove the second sentence now? Or do you think we should work that into something which can reasonably be sourced? -anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.202.233.125 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 20 October 2006.
      • I see that as backed up by the source, to be honest Anthony. Steve block Talk 12:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a deletion in criticism

Just got rid of this: "This can include licenses which disallow reproduction of source or the binaries but allow free modification for personal or corporate use. One such example of a license of that variety is the Open Public License"

Whose inaccuracy was pointed out in the Very Next Sentence. Moreover it seems to be useless spam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.215.209.95 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 25 October 2006.

[edit] GPL criticism paragraph removed

This new paragraph which I added to the article was removed considered "vandalism". Why is it considered vandalism when it includes valid cites to valid GPL criticisms? Maybe the heading "The GPL as a restrictive license" was not appropriate? Can the paragraph be improved to not be considered "unconstructive"? Thanks. 83.37.6.160

Some editors confuse "original research" with "vandalism" ... I'd say it was because you did not have "credible" sources. To quote WP:VERIFY

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Or they may have felt that the sources did nor represent a neutral POV ... can't say I really disagree with their decision, but I'd have used a different reason. --72.75.107.168 05:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record, sources have to be credible and reliable, but they don't need to have a neutral POV. Their use in the article, of course, has to be neutral. RossPatterson 15:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/n/u/Talk%7EGNU_General_Public_License_b2d0.html"